I can see why you'd be less than pleased with a review like that. But my guess is that the moderators have all they can handle even WITHOUT having to decide who is competent to review what piece of gear. And even if the moderators DID decide they could read all the reviews and delete any they don't feel are worth propagating, then you'd have people angry that their reviews were deleted, and probably eager to discuss that with the moderators.

I think the best way to grade the reviews is for each of us to decide how much weight to give to any particular review, the way we've been doing since before the web

I would agree generally, but this one line "review" by WA8MAX can hardly be called a proper review:

"Way over rated-not as good as my FT9000/FT1000D."

This is one of the most ridiculous reviews I have ever seen posted to eHam. Come on, you've got to have some kind of minimal standards?

P.S. I don't have a Kenwood TS-990s or any Kenwood equipment and I am unlikely to purchase a TS-990s in the immediate future, but to let an idiot nonsense review like this stand is a terrible dis-service to those who still take eHam reviews somewhat seriously.

Most internet polling risks being tainted by the crackpot factor....... As a general rule I throw out the most positive and most negative reviews on the assumption the middle of the curve is probably nearest to reality.

It's also a safe bet you can discount any interview that begins with: " The XXXXXXXX I won on eBay came in yesterday and......... "

Anyone who thinks they won anything on eBay shouldn't be doing a review, especially when its based on their first impression. The "winner" of any auction is the bidder with the most inflated opinion of what the goods are worth which does not make them smarter than the bidders who knew better.

Logged

...says a lot about our society that Martin Shkreli went to prison for defrauding investors but not for price gouging lifesaving medication - Ken Klippenstein

How about all of the 0 rating for the Kenwood TS2000 by people who never owned one, just based their reviews on its appearance

John, you're sure right about that. Same thing with those reviews that start "everything i hear about the Yaewood TG-4440 meens it is the transcever of the year and if i ever get a radeo other than my HT tha'tll be the radeo i buy!"

But once again, YOU made a judgement about how much weight to give to those "reviews," based on your own understanding of the reviewers' ability to provide a useful and objective summary. And I do the same thing, as I read them. And you and I might well have DIFFERENT estimates of how much weight to give to each individual review. But we can make those decisions for ourselves, don't you think? No need to try to make the moderators decide FOR us, right?

How about all of the 0 rating for the Kenwood TS2000 by people who never owned one, just based their reviews on its appearance

John, you're sure right about that. Same thing with those reviews that start "everything i hear about the Yaewood TG-4440 meens it is the transcever of the year and if i ever get a radeo other than my HT tha'tll be the radeo i buy!"

But once again, YOU made a judgement about how much weight to give to those "reviews," based on your own understanding of the reviewers' ability to provide a useful and objective summary. And I do the same thing, as I read them. And you and I might well have DIFFERENT estimates of how much weight to give to each individual review. But we can make those decisions for ourselves, don't you think? No need to try to make the moderators decide FOR us, right?

73! Ken

All true, but there should be some minimum standards for what qualifies as a review. I have seen reviews (and reported) on eHam where the manufacturer has reviewed his own product. It seems the standards are very low and inconsistent.

Or people not doing a review but posting a question about the operation of the radio or some other factor that has nothing to do with a review. There are forums for these types of questions, but I guess people don't know the difference between a question forum and a review.

Most of the reviews here and elsewhere aren't worth a lot. It's human nature to have nothing but good to say about a rig you just popped $7,000 for. On those rare occasions when I'm looking for opinions on a purchase, I read only the negative reviews here and look for common threads. If you find none, that doesn't mean there are no major flaws with the unit. But, if you find multiple people complaining about the same thing(s), there's likely some substance to the complaints. Then the question becomes: Will that problem affect me given my operating habits? You may not care about problems with CW keying if you never operate CW.

I would agree generally, but this one line "review" by WA8MAX can hardly be called a proper review:

"Way over rated-not as good as my FT9000/FT1000D."

This is one of the most ridiculous reviews I have ever seen posted to eHam. Come on, you've got to have some kind of minimal standards?

P.S. I don't have a Kenwood TS-990s or any Kenwood equipment and I am unlikely to purchase a TS-990s in the immediate future, but to let an idiot nonsense review like this stand is a terrible dis-service to those who still take eHam reviews somewhat seriously.

That is one I do not even bother looking at. I think you have fans of each brand that routinely offer up bad reviews of other radios.

Just thought of something, and you do have an out. The reviews ask if you are an owner, like 0-3 months. If the posts suggests that you are not an owner, or that you tried it, then you should not be able to review it.

Copyright 2000-2018 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement